Image stabilization

First it was the hype on megapixels, where marketers sold (or at least, attempted to sell) us on the idea that bigger means better.

Now it’s the “image stabilization” battle. More and more cameras are having this “image stabilization” feature, but does it really perform true image stabilization?

Lets get one thing clear. There is “optical image stabilization” and there is “digital image stabilization.” Optical image stablization requires that the camera either stabilizes the actual lens element or of the sensor itself to allow one to take a blur-free shot at slower shutter speeds. On the other hand, a lot of camera sport features like “digital image stabilization” or “anti-blur” or “anti-shake.” This, when you carefully investigate, is nothing more than the camera bumping up the ISO and which eventually translates to higher noise and poorer image quality.

“We would like to see an end to the use of the word ‘Image Stabilization’ where no physical stabilization mechanism (lens shift or sensor shift) exists, a better description would be ‘Low Light mode’ or ‘High Sensitivity mode’

The anti-shake is not really just bumping up ISO- at least it isnt for DSLRs and corresponding lenses. Sony has its gimmick guilt into the camera, canon and nikon have it on lenses. DPReview was talking more of the point and blur cameras =).

From my experience as a nikon shooter, VR does work and does make a major difference, and isnt just bumping up ISO ^^. pick up a canon lens with IS for your 350D and test it out =)

fanie

i have sony dsc t-50, supposedly with double anti-blur…so far, my photos are coming out more blurry than ever…i don’t know…there must be something I’m doing terribly wrong? help